You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Does Not Confer a Private Right of Action Upon Local School Districts to Challenge IDEA-Related Rulings by the State Education Department (SED)

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not give local educational agencies (LEA’s) (here a local school district) a private right of action to challenge a ruling by the State Education Department (SED) .  Here the SED found that the LEA’s dispute resolution practices violated state laws and regulations promulgated in accordance with the IDEA and ordered corrective measures. The LEA then challenged the SED’s rulings in an Article 78 action. The Third Department noted that the IDEA does not expressly confer a right of private action on LEA’s in this context and therefore whether such a right exists depends upon congressional intent. Because the IDEA confers a private right of action upon a specialized class, i.e., “any party aggrieved” by IDEA-related administrative proceedings which involve due process afforded a particular child, it follows that Congress did not intend to confer such a right upon LEA’s:

… Congress created procedural safeguards to ensure that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education and, in doing so, expressly granted a private right of action to “any party aggrieved” by an SEA’s administrative findings or decision resolving a due process complaint challenging “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of [a particular] child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child” (20 USC § 1415 [b] [6] [A]; [f], [g], [i] [2] [A]; see also Education Law § 4404; 8 NYCRR 200.5 [i], [j], [k], [l])[FN2]. Since the IDEA includes an express right of action in favor of a specific class of persons, it is logical to assume that, had Congress intended to bestow upon LEAs a right of action to challenge an SEA’s regulatory and enforcement actions, it would have expressly done so … .

Further evidence of a lack of Congressional intent can be found in the hierarchal regulatory and enforcement structure created by the IDEA, which requires the federal Secretary of Education to monitor the states’ implementation of IDEA mandates and imposes upon the states corresponding regulatory and enforcement responsibilities over LEAs (see 20 USC § 1412 [a] [11]; § 1416 [a] [3]; 34 CFR 300.600, 300.603). The delegation of regulatory and enforcement power to the Secretary of Education and the states, but not to LEAs, suggests that Congress specifically intended to deny LEAs a right of action to challenge an SEA’s compliance with the IDEA … . Moreover, it would be inconsistent for Congress to implicitly create this right of action, as doing so would divest the Secretary of Education and the states of their regulatory and enforcement authority and would transfer that power to the Judiciary … . Matter of East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist. v King, 2015 NY Slip Op 04703, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

Injury Caused by an Unsecured Scaffolding Component Which Fell Approximately Two-Feet, Striking Plaintiff, Was Not the Type of Elevation-Related Risk Which Is Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)

Plaintiff was injured when a component of scaffolding fell about two-feet and struck him.  The Third Department determined the incident was not the result of a circumstance covered by Labor Law 240 (1) (the absence of statutorily-required safety equipment), even though the incident was “gravity-related.”  However, the Labor Law 246 (1) cause of action, alleging a violation of a provision of the Industrial Code, and the Labor Law 200 cause of action against the general contractor which supervised and controlled the work, should not have been dismissed. With respect ot the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the court explained:

Labor Law § 240 (1) “imposes absolute liability on building owners and contractors whose failure to ‘provide proper protection to workers employed on a construction site’ proximately causes injury to a worker” … . The statute is intended to provide “extraordinary protections [applicable] only to a narrow class of dangers. More specifically, [the statute] relates only to special hazards presenting elevation-related risks” … . Accordingly, “section 240 (1) does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker; ‘[a] plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute'” … . Where, as here, an injury is caused by a falling object, liability “depends on whether the injured worker’s task creates an elevation-related risk of the kind that the safety devices listed in section 240 (1) protect against” … . An elevation-related risk arises only where there is a “physically significant elevation differential” … . In order to determine whether a height differential is physically significant, we must consider “the weight of the object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent” … . Without a significant elevation differential, Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply, even if the injury is caused by the application of gravity on an object … .

Here, “tak[ing] into account the practical differences between the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and . . . the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by [the statute],” as we must …, we find that plaintiff’s injury, caused by the tipping frame or scaffold component (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.4), did not fall within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Our conclusion remains even if we accept it to be true that the frame was part of a scaffold that was in the process of being assembled or dismantled … . The record indicates that, at most, the crossbar of the frame, which was upright but not connected to any other component or supporting any planking, was two feet above plaintiff’s head. In our view, the facts do not present a physically significant height differential and, while plaintiff was exposed to a general workplace hazard, he was not exposed to an elevation-related risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . As such, this cause of action should be dismissed. Christiansen v Bonacio Constr., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04700, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

Dismissal of a Summary Judgment Motion as “Premature” Requires an Evidentiary Showing that Material Information Is In the Exclusive Possession and Control of the Moving Party

In the course of a decision concerning an easement and land ownership, the Third Department explained the proof requirements for a claim that a summary judgment motion should be dismissed as “premature.” The essence of the “premature” argument is that material facts are within the exclusive knowledge and possession of the moving party. The argument, to succeed, must be supported by an evidentiary showing. Here defendant argued that plaintiff failed to respond to certain discovery demands, but did not take the next step and demonstrate how the failure to respond deprived him of material information in plaintiff’s exclusive possession:

… [T]here was no basis to deny plaintiff’s summary judgment motion as premature. “Although a motion for summary judgment may be opposed with the claim that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but that such material facts are within the exclusive knowledge and possession of the moving party, the party opposing the motion must make an evidentiary showing to support that conclusion” … . Defendant pointed out that plaintiff failed to respond to certain discovery demands, but did not take the essential next step and show that her failure to do so deprived him of material information in her exclusive possession … . Bailey v Dimick, 2015 NY Slip Op 04704, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

Elements of a Defective Design Cause of Action Described

The Third Department determined questions of fact had been raised about whether a machine was defectively designed. Plaintiff was injured when he attempted to make adjustments while the machine was running.  There was evidence the adjustments could have been made safely using another access point. The court provided a good explanation of the elements of a defective-design cause of action:

Liability for a defectively designed product “attaches when the product, as designed, presents an unreasonable risk of harm to the user” … . A successful cause of action for defective design exists where a plaintiff is able to establish “that the manufacturer breached its duty to market safe products when it marketed a product designed so that it was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury” … . To demonstrate a product was not “reasonably safe,” the injured party must demonstrate both that there was a substantial likelihood of harm and that “it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner” .. . A claim may be defeated where a defendant demonstrates that the product’s “utility outweighs its risks [because] the product has been designed so that the risks are reduced to the greatest extent possible while retaining the product’s inherent usefulness at an acceptable cost” … . This “risk-utility analysis” requires consideration of “‘(1) the product’s utility to the public as a whole, (2) its utility to the individual user, (3) the likelihood that the product will cause injury, (4) the availability of a safer design, (5) the possibility of designing and manufacturing the product so that it is safer but remains functional and reasonably priced, (6) the degree of awareness of the product’s potential danger that can reasonably be attributed to the injured user, and (7) the manufacturer’s ability to spread the cost of any safety-related design changes'” … . Generally, the risk/utility analysis presents a factual question for a jury … . Barclay v Techno-Design, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04708, 3rd Dept 6-4-15

 

,

Contract Attorney Was an Employee Despite “Independent Contractor” Designation in a Written Employment Agreement

The Third Department determined a “contract attorney” hired by an attorney (Brody) for document-review in a class-action case was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, despite claimant’s designation as an independent contractor in a written agreement:

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a factual determination for the Board, and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . As here, “in cases where the rendering of professional services is involved, an employment relationship can be found where there is substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means” … .

Here, claimant was paid an agreed-upon hourly rate and required to work at least 45 hours a week, but not more than 50. He was also given specified hours each day to report to his assigned work station, he was required to take a daily unpaid 30 minute lunch break and was occasionally required to report to work on weekends. He was allowed to take unpaid days off, provided that he requested the time off in advance. He received daily assignments from an associate attorney of Brody, who supervised his work. In addition to document review, claimant also assisted in the litigation by providing Brody with written memoranda summarizing deposition testimony, work that included claimant’s attendance at meetings with attorneys from other firms involved in the litigation. In our view, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Brody retained sufficient overall control of claimant’s services to establish an employment relationship, despite evidence in the record that could support a contrary conclusion … . The fact that claimant signed a written agreement designating him as an independent contractor does not compel a different result … . Matter of Singhal (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04550, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

Sole Officer of Dissolved Corporation Personally Liable for Post-Dissolution Debts Attributed to “New Business”

The Third Department determined the sole officer of a corporation dissolved in 1997 was personally liable for the post-dissolution debts incurred for the purchase of fuel. The court explained the relevant law:

Business Corporation Law § 1005 (a) (1) provides, in relevant part, that, following dissolution, “[t]he corporation shall carry on no business except for the purpose of winding up its affairs.” Winding up, in turn, is defined as “the performance of acts directed toward the liquidation of the corporation, including the collection and sale of corporate assets” (…see Business Corporation Law § 1005 [a] [2]…). Notably, a dissolved corporation is precluded from engaging in new business … and “has no existence, either de jure or de facto, except for a limited de jure existence for the sole purpose of winding up its affairs” … . As a result, “[a] person who purports to act on behalf of a dissolved corporation is personally responsible for the obligations incurred” … . Long Oil Heat, Inc. v Polsinelli, 2015 NY Slip Op 04542, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

,

Documents Which Reveal the Identity of Sex Offense Victims Are Categorically Excluded from Disclosure Under the Civil Rights Law and Public Officers Law (Even If the Identifying Information Can Be Redacted)

The Third Department determined petitioner’s request for evidence held by the district attorney’s office was properly denied.  The requested evidence consisted of chat logs and the contents of computers which identified the victims of sex offenses. The court noted that, even if the identification could be reacted, the documents are categorically excluded from disclosure under the Civil Rights Law and Public Officers Law.  Matter of MacKenzie v Seiden, 2015 NY Slip Op 04537, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

Open Question About Whether Claimant Was Permanently Disabled Indicated Claimant’s Case Was Not Truly Closed in 2005—Transfer of Claim to the Special Fund (for Closed Cases) Properly Denied

The Third Department determined open questions about whether the claimant was permanently disabled demonstrated that claimant’s case was not truly closed in 2005.  Therefore transfer of the claim to the Special Fund was not warranted:

“Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a shifts liability for a claim to the Special Fund where a workers’ compensation case that was fully closed is reopened more than seven years after the underlying injury occurred and more than three years after the last payment of compensation” … . “Whether there has been a true closing of the case is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … .

Here, a report based upon an independent medical examination of claimant was filed with the Board in 2005 in which the examiner opined that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement at that time and classified her as suffering from a mild degree of disability. Inasmuch as this report raised the issue of claimant having a permanent disability, which remained unresolved in 2011 when the employer requested that liability shift to the Special Fund, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that the case was not truly closed at that time and Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a did not apply … . Matter of Kettavong v Livingston County SNF, 2015 NY Slip Op 04556, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

,

Election Poll Worker Not an Employee—Not Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits

The Third Department determined an election poll worker was not an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

“An employer-employee relationship exists when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results [although] control over the means [used to achieve those results] is the more important factor to be considered” … .

Here, claimant testified that she responded affirmatively to a card received in the mail from the Board of Elections asking if she was available to work on election day; she thereafter received training and was assigned to a polling place, where she worked as a poll worker or inspector on election day. Her duties included setting up and overseeing tables, signing in voters, showing them how to use the voting machines, keeping track of voting cards and printing a tally of votes at the end of the day, which were reported to the Board of Elections.

Poll clerks, like election inspectors, are appointed, trained, compensated and perform duties as mandated by statute and overseen by the New York State Board of Elections (see Election Law §§ 3-400, 3-402, 3-404, 3-412, 3-420; see also Election Law § 3-102). In the City of New York, they are compensated at a per diem rate established by the Mayor (see Election Law § 3-420 [1]). While, pursuant to those governing statutes, the Board of Elections may have exercised some supervision over the poll workers and their training, this is insufficient, by itself, to establish an employer-employee relationship, and the record is devoid of any proof that any such supervision exercised exceeded that required by law, or that additional duties or requirements were imposed beyond those provided by statute … . Matter of Chorekchan (New York City Bd. of Elections–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04552, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

Music Teachers Were Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Criteria for Professionals, Like Musicians, Who Do Not Lend Themselves to Direct Supervision or Control, Explained

The Third Department determined music teachers were employees of Encore Music, a service which connected students with teachers for a portion of the fees paid by the students.  Encore unsuccessfully argued the teachers were independent contractors:

…”[W]here the details of the work performed are difficult to control because of considerations such as professional . . . responsibilities,” courts have applied the “‘overall control'” test, which requires that the employer exercise control over “‘important aspects of the services performed'” …, a test which has been applied to musicians who “do not easily lend themselves to direct supervision or control” … . Further, “an organization which screens the services of professionals, pays them at a set rate and then offers their services to clients exercises sufficient control to create an employment relationship” … .

…Encore screened the teachers, checked their references, conducted criminal background checks and then matched students to teachers based upon a variety of factors, including qualifications. Encore thereafter followed up with the students after lessons to ensure that they were satisfied. Encore set the lesson fees, which were generally the same for all teachers with some exceptions, billed students directly and paid teachers regardless of whether the students paid Encore. Although teachers used their own equipment, determined the lesson plans or methods and could decline students, they were required to sign a contract that provided that they would, “when reasonably requested by [Encore], act as a music lesson instructor.” The contract also contained a clause prohibiting teachers from soliciting Encore’s students that was in effect during the contract and for three years after its expiration, although teachers were allowed to work for competitors and to have their own private students. Matter of Encore Music Lessons LLC (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 04553, 3rd Dept 5-28-15

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy